JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent/defendant Nos.1 to 4. Also heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No. 5. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 9/2008. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and likewise, the present respondents were the defendants. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2012 dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff as appellant is before this Court. 3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the appellant is that he purchased a certain plot of land, which was a part of LSC No. 668 of 1976 from one Smt. Debu Thapani by executing a Sale Deed dated 21.12.1995 for a considered sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs). The dimension and boundary of the purchased land was mentioned in the Sale Deed. According to the appellant, Smt. Debu Thapani survived her late mother Smt. Mangali Thapani and she looked after the landed property after obtaining Heirship Certificate No. 293/1993 in respect of LSC No. 668 of 1976. However, while the said LSC was in her custody, the same was stolen by her nephew Sh. Lalzuiliana, alias Budea, S/o Gone Thapa (L) and he caused the partition of the said LSC into 5 (five) different plots as follows:- (i) Suresh Thapa - LSC No. 668/1976 (ii) Rosiama - LSC No. 858/1993 (iii) LilaThapa - LSC No. 859/1993 (iv) JamunaThapa - LSC No. 860/1993 (v) Lalzuiliana - LSC No. 861/1993 4. Smt. Debu Thapani then made a complaint on the partition of LSC No. 668 of 1976 in the names of the persons as mentioned above and subsequently, she filed a Civil Suit, which was registered and numbered as Civil Suit No. 5/1995. The Civil Suit was disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment & Order dated 25.03.2003 with a finding that the plaintiff Smt. Debu Thapani was entitled to relief to the extent it was mentioned in the judgment. The Civil Suit was disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment & Order dated 25.03.2003 with a finding that the plaintiff Smt. Debu Thapani was entitled to relief to the extent it was mentioned in the judgment. The operative portion of the judgment may be abstracted below:- “(i) All the remaining vacant portions of the suit land covered under the original LSC No. 668/1976 shall be restored to the plaintiff without cancelling the other 4 (four) existing LSCs aforementioned. (ii) Demarcation lines of LSCs between those of the defendant Nos. 5 & 8 and the plaintiff shall be modified accordingly by the defendant Nos. 1 -4 at the instant of the plaintiff within 60 (sixty) days from the date of the order.” 5. That since the appellant had purchased some portion of the land from Smt. Debu Thapani, he was about to make developments on the suit land. However, Smt. Phulmaya Thapa and her children instituted a Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 by making Smt. Debu Thapani and the appellant as the defendants. The Declaratory Suit came to be dismissed vide Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2006. Smt. Phulmaya Thapa and her children being dissatisfied with the dismissal of the suit filed an appeal, i.e., RFA No. 18/2006 before the appellate Court but the same was also dismissed vide Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2007 and the right and title in respect of the suit land in favour of the appellant was confirmed. Despite such being the case, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the meantime had issued LSC No. 103102/01/1281 of 2005 to the respondent No. 5 on the strength of an alleged Sale Deed executed by Sh. Baitea, S/o Sene (L) in favour of the respondent No. 5 for the very same land purchased by the appellant. The appellant therefore being aggrieved instituted Title Suit No. 9/2008 praying for a decree to declare his right and title over the suit land after the cancellation of the LSC issued to the respondent No. 5. Baitea, S/o Sene (L) in favour of the respondent No. 5 for the very same land purchased by the appellant. The appellant therefore being aggrieved instituted Title Suit No. 9/2008 praying for a decree to declare his right and title over the suit land after the cancellation of the LSC issued to the respondent No. 5. The appellant also sought for modification of the order under Memo No. 21011/39/07-DC(A)/206 dated 25.01.2008 for effecting cancellation of the LSC issued to the respondent No. 5 and also for issuing him a House Pass in respect of the land purchased by him from Smt. Debu Thapani even before the final settlement of the review case on the strength of the judgment & order passed by the Court in Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 and RFA No. 18/2006. 6. Against the Title Suit, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as official defendants filed their written statement. Likewise, the respondent No. 5 as defendant No. 5 in the suit filed her written statement. Apart from the preliminary objections taken by the respondents, they denied that there was any encroachment to the land of the appellant by the LSC of the respondent No. 5. An objection was raised to the claim of the appellant that Smt. Debu Thapani did not have the right and title over the suit land and therefore, the appellant could not have purchased the land from her. On the other hand, the respondent No. 5 purchased the plot of land from Sh. Baitea, S/o Sene (L) of Bawngkawn on 09.06.1999 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs) without any objection from Smt. Debu Thapani. That since the respondent No. 5 was not impleaded as a party defendant in Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 or Civil Suit No. 5/1995, the judgment rendered in the two suits did not have any binding upon her. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 claimed that there was no infirmity in the issuance of the LSC to her for the land she had purchased from Sh. Baitea, S/o Sene (L) of Bawngkawn. 7. After the pleadings were completed, the learned Trial Court framed 11 (eleven) issues, which are as follows: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style. 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendants. 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppels and acquiescence. 4. 7. After the pleadings were completed, the learned Trial Court framed 11 (eleven) issues, which are as follows: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style. 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendants. 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppels and acquiescence. 4. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the instant suit. 5. Whether the suit is properly valued and whether the requisite Court fees has been paid. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties or not. 7. Whether the suit land is within/or covered by LSC No. 668/1976. 8. Whether the Sale Deed executed by the plaintiff and Smt. Debu Thapani in respect of the suit land is valid in the eye of law. If so, whether the area of the said land purchased by the plaintiff has been encroached upon by the LSC No. 103102/01/1281 of 2005 belonging to the defendant No. 5. 9. Whether the claim of the plaintiff for cancellation of LSC No. 103102/01/1281 of 2005 belonging to the defendant No. 5 has connection with the other Court proceedings in Review Case No. 1/2003 arising out of Civil Suit No. 5/1995. 10. Whether the LSC No. 103102/01/1281 of 2005 issued in favour of the defendant No. 5 is legally valid or not. 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed. If so, to what extent. 8. The appellant in order to establish his case examined 4 (four) witnesses including himself. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as defendant Nos. 1 to 4 examined 2 (two) defense witnesses and the respondent No. 5 as defendant No. 5 examined 4 (four) witnesses including herself. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2012 dismissed the Title Suit. 9. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment & order failed to consider the evidence of the appellant and his witnesses to the effect that his right and title over the suit land was already settled in his favour by a judicial decision rendered in connection with Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 vide Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2006. Referring to the said judgment & order, the learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court had specifically decided that since Smt. Debu Thapani had taken the full consideration of Rs. Referring to the said judgment & order, the learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court had specifically decided that since Smt. Debu Thapani had taken the full consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) for the land sold by her and exhibited as Exhibit-D-1, the appellant is clearly entitled to the ownership of the land purchased by him. The learned counsel further submits that on the maintainability of the suit, the learned Trial Court had wrongly come to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable due to lack of paragraph wise verification of the plaint as required by Order 4 & 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by relying upon the Apex Court decision, which is to the effect that in a suit, CPC is applicable in letters and spirit. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that by virtue of the amendment of Section 21 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 (Civil Courts Act) in the year 2007, CPC was made applicable in spirit only. Therefore, the learned Trial Court committed error in making its conclusion that the suit was not maintainable due to lack of paragraph wise verification of the plaint. The learned Trial Court is otherwise expected to decide the suit in accordance with law, equity and good conscience. 10. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel further submits that according to the respondent No. 5, she purchased the suit land from Baitea alias Budea alias Lalzuiliana on 09.06.1999 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs) in the presence of reliable witnesses. He however submits that there is no mention about the LSC in the Sale Deed but at the same time, the respondent No. 5 was said to be issued LSC No. 1281/2005 on the basis of the Sale Deed. The learned counsel submits that from the judgment & order passed in Civil Suit No. 5/1995 on 25.03.2003, it is clear that LSC No. 668/1976 belongs to Smt. Debu Thapani. The said LSC in fact was never mutated in the name of Lalzuiliana and therefore, there is no basis on the claim of the respondent No. 5 to have purchased the land from Lalzuiliana. The learned counsel also submits that Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 filed by Phulmaya Thapa and two others against Debu Thapani and the present appellant was dismissed vide Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2006. The learned counsel also submits that Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 filed by Phulmaya Thapa and two others against Debu Thapani and the present appellant was dismissed vide Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2006. The learned Court below specifically framed issues on the validity of the Heirship Certificate, i.e., Issue Nos. 4 & 7. The two issues were decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. On a further challenge made by the plaintiffs by filing RFA No. 18/2006 before the appellate Court, the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the same has attained a finality. 11. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that after the Indian Stamp (Mizoram Act, 1996) was framed, stamp duty came to be applicable only w.e.f. 22.04.1997. The Sale Deed by which, the respondent No. 5 claimed to have purchase the suit land was executed on 09.06.1999 and which is after the Stamp Act was made applicable in the State of Mizoram. Therefore, without fulfilling the requirements of the Stamp Act, the Sale Deed cannot be accepted. In fact, there is only one signatory in the Sale Deed and therefore, the Sale Deed is only vague and cannot be acted upon for any purpose. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel also submits that although the learned Trial Court heavily relied upon the Verification Report dated 25.08.2003, which was marked as Exhibit D-2 but the fact remains that the same was never proved before the Trial Court. He submits that mere marking of documents as exhibits does not mean that the same has been duly proved. In this connection, he relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in 2010 (4) SCC 491 and the decision of this Court in Jiten Borah Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2012 (5) GLT 347. He submits that in Jiten Borah (Supra), the case of Ram Pal Singh Bisen (Supra) was relied upon by this Court. 12. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that Lalzuiliana never inherited the land and therefore, the respondent No. 5 cannot have a better right than Lalzuiliana himself. In this connection, he relies upon the Apex Court decision rendered in Sewa Ram & Others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1997 (5) SCC 166 . Mr. 12. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that Lalzuiliana never inherited the land and therefore, the respondent No. 5 cannot have a better right than Lalzuiliana himself. In this connection, he relies upon the Apex Court decision rendered in Sewa Ram & Others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1997 (5) SCC 166 . Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel thus submits that the impugned judgment & order is not sustainable and the same should be set aside and quashed. 13. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that Baitea and Budea are two separate individuals and since their identity has been mistaken, the same is one of the main reason for filing of the instant appeal. She submits that the respondent No. 5 bought her land from Baitea, S/o Senea (L). However, this name has been confused and mistaken as Budea on several occasion by all the parties. Budea @ Lalzuiliana is the son of Gone Thapa. Baitea @ Prem Singh Thapa is the son of Shyam Singh Thapa @ Senea. The learned Government Advocate also submits that no decree was prepared in CS No.3/1995 and therefore, it cannot be said to binding upon anyone. 14. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials on record. 15. Before we proceed to examine the matter, it may be stated herein that this Court vide order dated 16.01.2018 with the consent of the learned counsel of the parties directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to constitute a verification team to conduct spot verification to find out the exact area of LSC No. 858/1993, LSC No. 859/1993 and LSC No. 861/1993. Further, verify the area of LSC No. 861/1993 and LSC No. 668/1976 and demarcate the boundaries. 16. Accordingly, a verification team was constituted and spot verification was scheduled for 22.02.2018. On 22.02.2018, the appellant, representative of the owner of LSC No.860/1993 and the deputed Revenue officials were present but respondent No.5 did not turn up. The verification report prepared was then filed by the Government Advocate by way of an affidavit on 03.04.2018. The report filed is to the effect that not all the LSC holders were present on the spot including the Respondent No.5 when verification was done. The verification report prepared was then filed by the Government Advocate by way of an affidavit on 03.04.2018. The report filed is to the effect that not all the LSC holders were present on the spot including the Respondent No.5 when verification was done. RCC buildings were found to have already been built covering almost the entire area and therefore, it was not possible to identify and pin point the exact area and boundary of each of the LSCs. 17. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 11.04.2018, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 informed the Court that the reason as to why the respondent No.5 could not be present on the day of the spot verification was due to late information given to her. As such, Court once again directed the respondent No.3 to issue fresh notice to all the parties by fixing a convenient date for spot verification. 18. Subsequently, the matter was then listed again on 13.06.2018 wherein Court was informed that although the joint verification was scheduled for 31.05.2018 but the respondent No.5 again did not turn up on personal ground and instead, she sent her representative who was not conversant with the area of the land in dispute. Therefore, no verification report could be prepared. The learned counsels for the rival parties then informed the Court that the matter may be referred to the Lok Adalat as the parties would like to make an attempt for settlement of the dispute. The matter was then placed before the Lok Adalat on 14.07.2018 and thereafter, on 31.01.2020. However, on both occasions, no settlement could be made and so, the matter was sent back to the Court for adjudication. 19. The matter was then placed before the Lok Adalat on 14.07.2018 and thereafter, on 31.01.2020. However, on both occasions, no settlement could be made and so, the matter was sent back to the Court for adjudication. 19. As may be noticed, the Title Suit was filed by the appellant with a prayer for passing a decree declaring his right and title over the suit land after the cancellation of the LSC issued to the respondent No.5, for modification of the order under Memo No. 21011/39/07-DC(A)/206 dated 25.01.2008 for effecting cancellation of the LSC issued to the respondent No. 5 and for issuing him a House Pass in respect of the land purchased by him from Smt. Debu Thapani even before the final settlement of the review case on the strength of the judgment & order passed by the Court in Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 and RFA No. 18/2006 arising out of Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998. 20. Let us now examine as to how the Ld. Trial Court dealt with the issues framed and decided the suit. Out of the 11 issues framed, the learned Trial Court decided Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 in favour of the appellant and the remaining against him. Issue No. 1 is with regard to the maintainability of suit in its form and style. The learned Trial Court by relying upon the Apex Court’s decision in Sinnamani & Anr. Vs. G. Vettivel & Ors., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 759 , decided the issue against the appellant. In Sinnamani & Anr. (supra), the issue before the Apex Court was as to whether the Trusts Act, 1882 contains enabling provisions to convert original petition under the said Act into a suit as defined under the CPC. The Apex Court was of the view that certain legislations such as, the Succession Act, 1925 specifically provide for conversion of original petition into a suit. However, the Trusts Act, 1882 did not contain any such enabling provision and accordingly held that the Trust Original Petition could not be allowed to be converted into a suit. The Apex Court also observed that rejection of the same under Order-VII Rule 11 CPC would not operate as a bar for the appellants to file a fresh suit in accordance with law. The Apex Court also observed that rejection of the same under Order-VII Rule 11 CPC would not operate as a bar for the appellants to file a fresh suit in accordance with law. The Apex Court also took into consideration Section 26(1) of the CPC, which provides that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of the plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. In the present case, it may be seen that the appellant filed his plaint and was supported by an affidavit. This apart, CPC has been made applicable in spirit by the amendment of Section 21 of the Civil Courts Act in the year 2007. Therefore, under the circumstance, the learned Trial Court was not justified in deciding Issue No. 1 against the appellant. 21. Coming to Issue No. 2, which is as to whether the plaintiff, has cause of action against the defendants. The learned Trial Court was of the view that the sale deed which was exhibited as exhibit P-4 was not registered under the Registration Act and it is not with requisite stamp duty. As such, the same could not be accepted as a valid instrument. In this connection, it may be noticed that the Stamp Act was not applicable in the year 1995 and it became applicable only with the framing of Indian Stamp (Mizoram Act, 1996) w.e.f. 22.04.1997. While such being the case, the Sale Deed dated 09.06.1999 relied upon by the respondent No. 5 and exhibited as Exhibit D-5-2 was prepared after the Stamp Act become applicable in the State of Mizoram. A perusal of the Sale Deed dated 09.06.1999 would go to show that there is only one signatory i.e. the signature of the vendor, which does not conform to the requirement of making a valid sale deed. This apart, the validity of the Heirship Certificate No. 293/1993 (Exhibit P-1) was questioned by the learned Trial Court. However, the fact remains that the Heirship Certificate was never challenged by anyone and in fact, in the Civil Suit No. 5/1995 and in the Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998, the Heirship Certificate was found to be valid. Moreover, no issue was framed by the learned Trial Court as regards the validity of the Heirship Certificate. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in deciding Issue No. 2 against the appellant. 22. Moreover, no issue was framed by the learned Trial Court as regards the validity of the Heirship Certificate. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in deciding Issue No. 2 against the appellant. 22. In respect of Issue No. 7 which is regarding as to whether the suit land is within or covered by LSC No. 668/1976, it is seen that the learned Trial Court in deciding the said issue against the appellant has placed reliance upon the verification report on land dispute of Smt. Mangali Thapani, Chaltlang verified by Mr. Dawngkima, Asst. Director of Survey dated 29.08.2003, which was exhibited as Exhibit D-2. It may, however, be seen that the said exhibit was not proved in accordance with law. The Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another (supra) in the given facts of that case held that mere admission of document nor evidence does not amounts to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. Under the law of evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents made amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. All documents cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court. The decision of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another (supra) was also relied upon by this Court in Jiten Borah (supra). Therefore, under the circumstance, the learned Trial Court was not justified in deciding the Issue No. 7 against the appellant on the strength of the verification report which was not proved as per law. 23. As regards, Issue Nos. 8 & 9, the learned Trial Court relied upon the findings made on the earlier issues and therefore, a detail discussion on the same will not be required. It may, however, be noticed as regards Issue No. 9 which is as to whether the claim of the appellant for cancellation of the LSC belonging to the respondent No. 5 is connected with the other Courts’ proceedings i.e. Review Case No. 1/2003 arising out of Civil Suit No. 5/1995. It may, however, be noticed as regards Issue No. 9 which is as to whether the claim of the appellant for cancellation of the LSC belonging to the respondent No. 5 is connected with the other Courts’ proceedings i.e. Review Case No. 1/2003 arising out of Civil Suit No. 5/1995. It may be seen that the respondent No. 5 was not a party to the Civil Suit and likewise, to the Review Petition and therefore, it only appears that the referred case has nothing to do with the respondent No. 5 in the present case. 24. As regards, Issue No. 10 which is as to whether the LSC issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 is legally valid or not, the learned Trial Court while deciding the issue against the appellant has failed to take into consideration the fact that the LSC issued in favour of the respondent No. 5, which was exhibited as Exhibit P-10 clearly mentioned that the LSC was issued in supersession of LSC No. 668/1976. LSC No. 668/1976 was inherited by Smt. Debu Thapani through Heirship Certificate No. 293/1993 and from whom, the appellant had purchased his plot of land. In other words, the land purchased by the appellant is a part of the land covered by LSC No. 668/1976. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court without considering this aspect is found to be erroneous. 25. As for the Issue No. 11, in view of the findings in the earlier issues, the same was decided against the appellant. Therefore, there will be no requirement to examine this issue. 26. Thus, from an overall appreciation of the evidence on record and the findings and decision of the learned Trial Court, it can be seen that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration vital aspects of the case including the earlier decisions of the Court in Civil Suit No. 5/1995, Declaratory Suit No. 1/1998 and RFA No. 18/2006 but proceeded to rely upon the verification report dated 29.08.2003 (Exhibit D-2), which was not even proved in accordance with law and as such, the finding of the learned Trial Court is found to be not justified and erroneous. The Apex Court in Sinnamani & Anr. The Apex Court in Sinnamani & Anr. (supra), for the given facts of that case held that the purchaser cannot have a better title than the seller himself when the seller did not acquire any title. Similarly, if Lalzuiliana from whom the respondent No. 5 purchased the land did not inherit the land in question, the respondent No. 5 herself cannot be said to have a better right. 27. Thus, upon due consideration of the matter in its entirety. I find force in the grounds taken in the appeal and therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court having failed to consider the projected case of the parties and the evidence led in the correct perspective, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs should re-visit the evidences led once again. In other words, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for remand for consideration of the learned Trial Court afresh in the light of the observations and findings made herein above. 28. In the result, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2012 is set aside and the matter remanded back to the learned Trial Court for consideration afresh from the stage of arguments and hearing the parties by giving them reasonable opportunity. It is also provided herein that if the parties concerned desire to produce further evidence, in support of their case, they will be at liberty to file appropriate application before the Trial Court and in such event, the Ld. Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merit and in accordance with law. This liberty is given keeping in mind the fact that much development has taken place on the disputed land as can be noticed from the spot verification attempted on 22.02.2018 and 31.05.2018 as directed by this Court. On remand, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to the parties by fixing a date for appearance of the parties and to receive further orders and take steps as mentioned herein above. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time, the learned Trial Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 29. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Registry to send back the LCR immediately.